Re: francois' comments and why RFC4474 not used in the field
Adam Roach <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.sip |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Anthony D Pike wrote: > > This is an interesting case that Adam has brought up, and I'm sure > there are many others as well. The approach I had thought of for this > type of case is to have a second signature after the radacting has > taken place, so the user understands where it was changed and possibly > why! The original RFC 4474 signature would NOT be removed. Everytime a > modification is done to the Message Request effectively a diff > signature with a reason could be added. > Yep. And that would work with SDP in INVITES, too. > Unfortunately this is pretty huge burden on the UAS to process all the > signatures if it choses to do so. > Not really -- performing three or four crypto operations shouldn't slow down a terminal more than a trivial amount. And, of course (as you point out), it doesn't *need* to actually process the signatures. /a _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use [email protected] for questions on current sip Use [email protected] for new developments on the application of sip